Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

I took a Venge out on a four-hour ride in the Carmel Valley and over Laureles Grade back to the Specialized 2012 Product Launch in Monterey. While it is still quite a light bike that responds well to pedaling inputs, I think a rider would really have to drink the aero-testing Kool-Aid to choose it as his or her weapon of choice.... On the other hand, you donâ€™t have to be particularly sensitive to feel the jarring while riding this bike on rough roads. The shoulder of the road in Carmel Valley is quite rough, and I couldnâ€™t wait to get off of the Venge; itâ€™s simply too harsh a ride for me,

Who wants to wager that Leonard got on thinking "this thing is going to be harsh?" Who else wants to wager that the tires were different(hell, did he check the tire pressure)? And the wheels were different?

Cavendish rode the Venge for many a stage in LeTour, maybe even all? He seemed to come out all right.

PezTech wrote:What formula specifically are you using in your BS test?

Aero test that don't tell you what they are measuring, or how the are measuring and claim under all conditions they save watts. Are we talking frames, frames and forks, complete bikes, bike with riders........... Details matter

First of all I apologize, I know this doesn't add anything to the discussion and might not even be that funny; I just thought of Cavendish calling the Specialized HQ to complain about his Venge:

- Specialized headquarters, how can I help you?- Hi, this is Cavendish, Mark Cavendish. I am calling from France, I've been racing on the new Venge for over 10 days now,and to be quite honest I couldnâ€™t wait to get off of the Venge; itâ€™s simply too harsh a ride for me.I was just wondering if perhaps you guys could come up with a more forgiving frame?! I don't know if I can carry on riding this,I might borrow someone else's bike, or get a Litespeed or Softride - cheers!!

1. In a pro race scenario, team work is more important than the bike's aero-ness. For example, Lance had Heras, Hincapie, Rubiera, Leipheimer, etc. to improve his "aerodynamics". The only situation where bike aerodynamics are that important is in a breakaway situation... That does not mean the aero bike itself is not faster.

2. Pros are paid to ride whatever they are given.

FInally, I agree it's the rider that makes the most difference. But bikes can help a bit...

Also a comment on the other gentleman's post reagarding Venge being harsh for Zinn -- Zinn and Cav probably do not necessarily have the same level of physical fitness, riding preference and priorities... Plus tires, saddle, tape can all make a big difference on comfort, as has been said many times before.

elviento wrote:1. In a pro race scenario, team work is more important than the bike's aero-ness. For example, Lance had Heras, Hincapie, Rubiera, Leipheimer, etc. to improve his "aerodynamics". The only situation where bike aerodynamics are that important is in a breakaway situation... That does not mean the aero bike itself is not faster.

True, however just like environmental factors such as weather/wind/yaw/whatever, team tactics will always be a factor in racing. This is a team sport, afterall. The argument still stands whether it is yesterday, today, or tomorrow. Despite how much things are promoted to be of a certain quality in 'ideal' scenarios - such as that of a wind tunnel, for example - reality over the course of a race, whether it is a stage race or a one-day race, will take precedence.

elviento wrote:2. Pros are paid to ride whatever they are given.

Correct, however they also got to choose: several teams were sponsored by a brand that carries/promotes an aero frame. Not all of their riders chose to ride that aero frame. Again, reference the results in correlation with this.

madcow wrote:Not sure what this counts for as I can't give any real details but here's what I bring to the party.

A major bike manufacturer (one of the big guys) lets call them brand A held a meeting internally to discuss the emergence of aero road bikes. They thought they determined without any testing that these aero road bikes were pointless. Their reason was that they knew once a couple of round bottles were bolted to an aero road bike, most the aero savings would go out the window and you'd be left with a bike that isn't really any faster but does suffer from a loss of ride quality. A couple engineers argued that the others might be wrong, so they decided to test this. They went out and bought an aero bike from Brand B, which was thought to be the best design. They took Brand B to the windtunnel, fitted it with some round bottles and tested it. I'm told that the results were quite impressive. In their tests Brand B saved 125-175 grams of drag in almost every situation when compared to a more traditional frame (I'm assuming a traditional frame is a Brand A frame.) Brand A was quite impressed with the performance of Brand B's bike, and since this was them telling me how well a competitors bike tested, I can be reasonable sure it wasn't just marketing b.s. This is a company that I know spends lots of money on R&D and so I would respect their opinion when I believe it to be honest.

They did say that doing comparisons to their own acceptable standards for "ride quality" Brand B was outside of what they'd consider acceptable but that they had some ideas for their own aero road bike as to make it even more aero than the Brand B that they tested (this I have no doubts they can or did do.) and they also had some ideas to improve the ride quality.

It's a really great way of explaining a U turn on aero bikes to their dealers that's for sure

After all. You DO need aero because the manufacturer DOES need another lucrative revenue stream. There is absolutely no other quantifiable justification for the BS mumbo jumbo being spouted by just about all mainstream manufacturers these days.

airwise wrote:It's a really great way of explaining a U turn on aero bikes to their dealers that's for sure

What U turn though? I haven't even figured out which company it is and no company I know of has said anything about aero road bikes to make a 180Â° turn possible or necessary, but, then again, very few companies call me to tell me what they think about aero road bikes, so I might have missed it.

If you believe that aero road bikes work you have a choice. Do I want the one that makes me faster for the same amount of pedaling or do I want the one that is more comfy while I have to pedal a little longer til I get back home?

"Nothing compares to the simple pleasures of a bike ride," said John F. Kennedy, a man who had the pleasure of Marilyn Monroe.

sawyer wrote:on the Zinn ride quality issue - note that by his own admission the roads were crap.

Zinn's comment about harsh riding aero frames and the compromise in ride quality is true in my limited experience on SLC-SL, S3, S5, Foil and Time RXR. It adds to his credibility to use the "kool-aid" quote and then say he couldn't get off the frame fast enough. Too bad he didnt compare it to the SL4 on the same roads and he retreated by saying the roads were harsh. That way he saves face for one of VN's largest advertisers. But then again LZ still rides lots of steel and ti.

In my opinion an aero frame is a priority if you have already maximized position, wheels and helmet. It still cracks me up to see all the tri geeks who got fit by "dr" Pruitt and have a stack of spacers, bento boxes and mirrors.

+1 colclimbersometimes I still see these guys in baggy shorts, floppy shirt, TT helmet with knees sticking out riding on crowded bike paths working oh so hard on very nice TT bikes but catching more air then grandma on her ballon tired 1950 beach bike. It is amusing to see high tech filter down to casual cyclist (I'm sure some say the same about this old geezer too). Anyway its good to hear some priority on this aero thing. It just one on a long list of issues that we deal with.

Do we know how many sprint finishes were won on an aero bike vs. a normal one? Honest questions.

I, too, think that the numbers will go up - but simply as a consequence of percentages of aero bikes in the peloton as a whole, not out of any true superiority. That percentage may increase simply by way of marketing pressures from manufacturers producing 'aero' bikes as they are the latest trend.

And, like it or not, it seems these days more and more that today's novelty becomes tomorrow's necessity... even though it's really unnecessary. As we progress forward with tech the 'leaps' we're making are getting smaller and smaller. Eventually they'll be quite moot, but again out of marketing pressure ( ) or just peer pressure that incredibly minute difference will be heralded as much more than it really is, today's novelty becomes tomorrow's necessity.

Also: is this saying that Gilbert is simply head and shoulder above everyone else? or is the Canyon Aeroad that much more superior of a frame design?